Sevenoaks District Council (23 019 756)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Miss B complained how the Council communicated with her about grass cutting issues. She said it failed to adhere to her reasonable adjustments, it provided contradictory information, and it delayed responding to her. She also said it failed to properly deal with the issues when it responded to her complaint. We find the Council was at fault for failing to adhere to Miss B’s reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B for her injustice. The rest of the issues Miss B has raised are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. We cannot achieve anything more for Miss B by investigating the Council’s complaints handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
The complaint
- Miss B complained how the Council communicated with her about grass cutting issues. She said it failed to adhere to her reasonable adjustments, it provided contradictory information, and it delayed responding to her requests for information. She also said it failed to properly deal with the issues when it responded to her complaint.
- Miss B also complained the Council does not have a grounds maintenance policy.
- Miss B says the matter has caused emotional distress and frustration. She says she spent time repeating herself and this exacerbated her mental health condition.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
- The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
- If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
What I have and have not investigated
- Miss B referred a previous complaint to us under reference 23013109 about the Council’s failure to collect grass cuttings and the injuries this caused to her dog. We decided her concerns would be best dealt with by the courts as a negligence claim. We will not revisit those matters in this investigation.
- I have not investigated Miss B’s complaint about the Council not having a grounds maintenance policy. The injustice to Miss B from the lack of a grounds maintenance policy is the injury to her dog, which as mentioned in paragraph seven above is best dealt with by the courts.
- I have also not investigated Miss B’s complaint about the Council providing contradictory information about who was responsible for cutting grass in the area or the delays in responding to these issues. The Council dealt with Miss B’s requests for information as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. If Miss B is unhappy with the Council’s responses, or its delays in dealing with it, she can contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information from Miss B. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
- Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
- Miss B has emotional support dogs. One of her dogs became injured when grass cuttings were left after grass maintenance took place near to where she lives.
- Miss B put in a claim to a neighbouring council for compensation for the injuries to her dog.
- Miss B contacted the Council at the beginning of October and asked for the procedure of its committee meetings. She also asked whether it had any upcoming meetings relevant to her concerns about health and safety in the neighbourhood. The Council provided a response to Miss B’s query seven working days later.
- Miss B sent the Council a claim for compensation after receiving confirmation it was responsible for maintaining the grass where her dog got injured.
- Miss B complained to the Council. She said it delayed dealing with her requests for information regarding who was responsible for grass maintenance, its communication was poor, and it provided contradictory information. She said the Council had failed to consider the health and safety risks from its grass maintenance. She asked it to contact her on the phone as a reasonable adjustment.
- The Council sent a letter to Miss B acknowledging her complaint. Miss B responded to the Council and asked if would contact her on the phone in line with her reasonable adjustments.
- The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint at the end of October. It responded to Miss B in writing. It said its insurer would deal with any claims. It also said if she was unhappy with how it handled her FOI requests, she could ask for an internal review. If she was unhappy with its review response, she could refer her complaint to the ICO.
- Miss B emailed the Council and said it failed to adhere to her reasonable adjustments and it had not phoned her before it issued its stage one response. She also said it failed to deal with her complaint about the contradictory information, delays and poor communication.
- The Council arranged a phone call with Miss B to discuss her concerns. It sent her a follow up email and confirmed it would look at the unresolved issues.
- The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint in November. It provided further information on its grass cutting schedule. It also said some issues she had raised would be dealt with as part of her insurance claim.
Analysis
- The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. Miss B asked the Council to contact her by phone before it issued its stage one response to her complaint. The Council failed to call Miss B as agreed. This is fault, which caused Miss B upset, and left her feeling the Council was not taking its duties seriously. I do however recognise the Council called Miss B before issuing its final response to her complaint.
- The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Miss B’s requests for information. It responded to her queries about committee meetings seven working days later, which was not an unreasonable delay. The other issues Miss B raised about the Council’s communication is linked to her FOI request, which I have not investigated for the reasons explained in paragraphs nine of this statement.
- Miss B says the Council failed to properly deal with her complaint regarding the contradictory information about who was responsible for cutting grass in the area and the delays in responding to these issues. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we cannot deal with the substantive issue. We cannot deal with the substantive issue (paragraph nine of this statement), and therefore I will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling.
Agreed action
- By 22 November 2024 the Council will apologise to Miss B for the upset caused by failing to adhere to her reasonable adjustments.
- The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.
Final decision
- There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss B an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman